Intersexuals, Avatars, Sphinx riddles, M/F or Evolution?

There seems to be a movement to dictate that intersexuals are of the LGBT crowd, yet I highly disagree. If someone isn't pure male or pure female, then doesn't that mean there is more than just males and females among us?

There could be a number of reasons from feminized males to masculinized females, and if you have resources it would be good to list those in this thread to consider. Yet, let's not stop there.

Consider the famous Sphinx that has a head and body that are different from what would seem normal. Maybe the head represents femininity and the body represents masculinity. In that case, the Sphinx is a intersexual due to the mix of the two. This would be different from LGBT because the Sphinx is not purely one way or purely the other way and chosen to do opposite of what is normal.

A homosexual, for example, is someone that would have a male brain and a male body and desires other males.

As intersexual then is different, as someone that would have a head like the sphinx and a body like the sphinx, and desires something of opposite sex then the head of the sphinx. It's all a sphinx, yet if we look at the head it doesn't look like the body. We could say the head represents sex and the body represents gender.

Intersexuals are, therefore, heterosexual yet like the sphinx. Doesn't the sphinx give us a clue, then, that there is more than just males and females among us?

Would it be a lie for a sphinx to write down there gender as the same as their sex? Or, do we realize that there really needs to be two questions to relate the gender and sex in order for the sphinx to not lie?


[edit on 17-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Alright, well, first, I think your interpretation of the Sphinx is deeply flawed. The body does not represent masculinity; it represents bestiality. (No, not in that way,l you pervs.) The body could easily be that of a lioness rather than a lion.

More relevantly: The LGBT movement is pretty heavily intertwined with all aspects of sexuality, gender included. If Intersex people should be left out of the movement, then TG people probably should too.

As to your "multiple genders" point -- I actually agree with that. The thing is, most people don't, and the LGBT movement could be involved in helping to establish that this is how we should think about gender. I see no reason why this should be outside the purview of the LGBT movement.

Intersexual? Hmm. Would I be having outercourse if I were to lay down with an intersexual? To answer your question though concerning the sphinx. I believe that love is something that can be shared with members of either sex. Maybe the sphinx is telling us that not only do we all speak different languages, different skin color, different features, have different experiences, live in different countries but we all are either male or female. Either male or female is unimportant as well as we are all human. We are one.

Originally posted by Solasis
Alright, well, first, I think your interpretation of the Sphinx is deeply flawed. The body does not represent masculinity; it represents bestiality. (No, not in that way,l you pervs.) The body could easily be that of a lioness rather than a lion.

Let's consider this more on the sense of the Theory of Evolution. If man originated from that primal soup, onto monkeys, and onto very hairy bipeds, then wouldn't it be at least metaphorically masculine?

If Intersex people should be left out of the movement, then TG people probably should too.

I'm not sure if TG topic would start another thread, so I'll hold off on that one for right now, as I'm already opinionated on it (based on my older thread).

As to your "multiple genders" point -- I actually agree with that.

I see no reason why this should be outside the purview of the LGBT movement.

The LGBT movement wants to umbrella intersexuals, yet intersexuals don't consider themselves anything like LGBT. I understand you point, yet where do we draw the line?

[edit on 17-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Intersexual? Hmm. Would I be having outercourse if I were to lay down with an intersexual?

I can get pregnant just by breathing.

Either male or female is unimportant as well as we are all human. We are one.

In the human sense, skin and bones, it doesn't involve the mind (i.e. the head of the sphinx). Human skin and bones can handle gender, yet not sex. This probably is debatable, so I just wanted to state a position on it to debate.

People seem often lucky when they match, and so the differences haven't been notice. Those that have noticed and felt different, value the difference, and probably wouldn't say 'we are one' so easily as the rest. They value the individualism and heterosexual uniqueness that seems generally misunderstood and lost into the homosexual crowd.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by dzonatas]

reply to post by dzonatas


Well the sphinx is divided into two distinct and separate parts. Intersex-type people are mixed together, perhaps not homogeneously, but not into two halves, certainly. If the sphinx builders had wanted to represent an ideal like you are describing I think they would have done better to divide the thing vertically, even if they were going to show it as two distinct halves. Because you see a head is used for one thing, and a body for another, but if half of each of the head and body were lion/person I think it would get the point across better.

Also the sphinx is not person/lion. It's all lion. The head has been changed into a person's head at some point in the past. At least that's one interpretation I've heard. Some uppity Pharaoh guy or something.

Well thats definetly a different way to look on the subject.

Originally posted by IceOwl
reply to post by dzonatas

 

If the sphinx builders had wanted to represent an ideal like you are describing I think they would have done better to divide the thing vertically, even if they were going to show it as two distinct halves.

That is a good way to look at it differently.

To me, that would seem to confuse that it might conceptual a hybrid or intrasexual. (Note, intra- vs inter-) That mainly would be due to how we see the brain/body as mirrored halves rather than a complete separate area of the being.

Also the sphinx is not person/lion. It's all lion. The head has been changed into a person's head at some point in the past. At least that's one interpretation I've heard. Some uppity Pharaoh guy or something.

Never heard that before. I would like to see references on it if it isn't conjecture.

There are more sphinxes around there, as well as cherubim and seraphim, for example.

reply to post by dzonatas


The act of being homosexual or any other sex that does not correlate to your physical, natural, appearance is the outcome of past incarnational experiences.

If one has a grade, this is just hypothetical, of 65% of past incarnations being male and has been born a female chances are they will be attracted to females or both sex's for that matter.

The effects may vary greatly due to experiences during those incarnations and will vary greatly in relation to each incarnation and what male/female relationships they have experienced during each unique past incarnation.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by Psychonaughty]

reply to post by Psychonaughty


So you think incarnated beings have chances to be intersexual, yet I'm not sure how you differed that from homosexuals.

Maybe instead of incarnates, it would be easier to look at avatars. Not sure where to start with avatars, as we could review the history, virtual reality, or even the movie.

What would you call the conditions if Jake in Avatar appeared in Grace's avatar, or vice-versa?



[edit on 17-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Here is historic symbolism about avatars (emphasis added):

Many claim that the ten avatars represent the evolution of life and of mankind. Matsya, the fish, represents life in water. Kurma, the tortoise, represents the next stage, amphibianism. The third animal, the boar Varaha, symbolizes life on land. Narasimha, the Man-Lion, symbolizes the commencement development of man. Vamana, the dwarf, symbolizes this incomplete development. Then, Parashurama, the forest-dweller, connotes completion of the basic development of humankind. The King Rama signals man's ability to govern nations. Krishna, an expert in the sixty-four fields of science and art according to Hinduism, indicates man's advancement to cultural concerns. Buddha, the Enlightened one, symbolizes the enlightenment and spiritual advancement of man. Note that the time of the avatars does not necessarily indicate much; kings ruled long before Rama and science was pursued long before Krishna. The avatars represent the order, and not the time, of these occurrences, according to certain Hindus. The animal development connotations bear striking resemblances to the theory of Evolution.

Source: Avatars, Thai Excotic Treasures

Hinduism seems the most resourceful area about Avatars. The other area would seem more lineage based. Note also this statement:

For instance, [Kiara Windrider] asserts that Gandhi was an avatar of non-violence, and Einstein was an avatar of physics and that any higher consciousness taking birth can be called an avatar.

This would lean the higher consciousness with femininity of birth, and science tends to relate consciousness to the head.

So, I guess people are to afraid to respond to this thread and I hope it wasn't due to the besti* comment.

Is intersexualism and sphinx history not debatable?

Maybe the psychology of it is harder than origins, so I might recreate another thread in the other forum based on origins only.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by dzonatas]

I think I catch your drift.

Isnt the left part of the brain feminine, creative ect ect and the right part mascauline? might have it the wrong way round.


As far as the Sphynx is concered, I aint sure, I always thought it was a lion, as lion symbology plays a huge part in all empires including my very own crown, lovely, not.

Why do you say the things about the sphynx as being both male and female? what evidence?

reply to post by dzonatas


Yes, you are accurate in the example related to the film named "Avatar".

IF you we're a male in a female avatars body then the porbability of you being attracted to other males is based mostly, not entirely, on the entity incarnating that physical body and not the physical body itself. Being born female or male would be different than simply controlling a male or female body for you have full rememberance of who you really are.

What if the one incarnating the female avatar body is a male but is already attracted to other males? It would be the same; however, I do believe there is a Universal equation in regards to such a scenerio in relation to real life and not the film named "Avatar".



[edit on 18-2-2010 by Psychonaughty]

Originally posted by Sparkey76
Isnt the left part of the brain feminine, creative ect ect and the right part mascauline? might have it the wrong way round.

Maybe there are characteristics found by one parietal lobe by the other parietal lobe, yet to nail them down as masculine or feminine so easily wouldn't be wise. There is still no scientific proof that the brain is only an optical device, except to say it would be ideal: Your 3rd eye can't see your brain.

As far as the Sphynx is concered, I aint sure, I always thought it was a lion, as lion symbology plays a huge part in all empires including my very own crown, lovely, not.

It is surely, feline. Perhaps the name sphynx/sphinx is related to the lynx. When I think that it is easy to slip on the tongue and say "felion" for some reason.

Why do you say the things about the sphynx as being both male and female? what evidence?

Consider there there is no proof that the entire being of homosapien is purely male, female, or evolved from a precursorial species. Then, consider where in that species that evolved any form of sex and gender. Gender tends to relate to genes, so that would constitute more of the body.

I think the evidence has been given to us by the ancients, such as the sphynx. Someone put it there with an obvious distinction. It also seem like it was turned around, yet that is harder to prove.

Originally posted by Psychonaughty
reply to post by dzonatas

 

What if the one incarnating the female avatar body is a male but is already attracted to other males? It would be the same; however, I do believe there is a Universal equation in regards to such a scenerio in relation to real life and not the film named "Avatar".

Actually, this can be very hard to determine what is what in that aspect.

For example, let's say we have subject A that is a female in a female body and subject B is a female in a male body. If subject A is attracted to subject B, does that make subject B a homosexual? Does it make subject A a lesbian?

Another example, subject C is a male in a male body, if subject C is attracted to subject A, doesn't that make him a heterosexual? Does that make subject A straight?

If B is attracted to A, would that be a homosexual or heterosexual?

If B is attracted to C, would that be a homosexual or heterosexual?

Some might think bisexual, yet lets take this a step further.

What if it is only the B's body that is attracted to A and only B's mind that is attracted to C, and there is no other way. That would not be bisexual in any way.

So what is it? Intersexual?

Ok, how about those with D.I.D (or MPD as it was known) where by the person has multiple personalities of any gender/age and in many instances animal personalities (over animal spirits) It is strange that the closer to the core being more primal instincts take rise and the animal personalities appear.

If I come at it from the angle that the society who created the sphinx was not one like ours and accepts those with D.I.D, then the sphinx could be a representation of the absolute power of the human psyche to survive any adversity.

I am unsure of any other circumstances where this human/animal mix occurs.

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
Ok, how about those with D.I.D (or MPD as it was known) where by the person has multiple personalities of any gender/age and in many instances animal personalities (over animal spirits) It is strange that the closer to the core being more primal instincts take rise and the animal personalities appear.

That could open a whole new thread on this topic, so it isn't a bad ideal to discuss it here. It's probably where I would have gone if I stuck just to origins.

If we could focus on something to keep such a variety of subjects in balance, it would be the soul.

The human body obviously demonstrates such characteristics. As a baby, we learn to walk. After we learn to walk, the body understands how to do it on its own, just by mere thought. In this sense, we could say the body is a separate personality that wanted to learn from the mind on how to walk. In the end, the mind no longer has to teach the body, and the body does it on its own. It is as if two existed in one in attempt to work in unison.

Is it dissociative? It does appear that way, yet that doesn't mean it is strictly in regards to how previous psychologist have defined MPD. It's more like a 'transfer' rather than a complete unique memory identity.

Based on that, we could say the mind and the body both have it's own separate memory.

If I come at it from the angle that the society who created the sphinx was not one like ours and accepts those with D.I.D, then the sphinx could be a representation of the absolute power of the human psyche to survive any adversity.

I am unsure of any other circumstances where this human/animal mix occurs.

Theory of Evolution... those that uphold that theory just tend to leave out the steps in-between species. They tend to only tell it by survival of the fittest rather than some sexual lust story that doesn't fit status quo.

Despite all the details that may be said, scientifically we have to consider the possibilities.

Easiest to point out the primal instincts and also note the possibility to 'create' as in the Avatar 3D movie.

If we could create an animal and 'be in it' like in the Avatar 3D, what animal would you pick and where on Earth would you be? Maybe you see how "interesting" it was for the movie Avatar 3D to actually do so well in front of all eyes.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by dzonatas]

reply to post by dzonatas


Your reply is very in-depth, and I need a little time to respond properly..

However to lift the animal side out for a moment, and having been labeled M.P.D until they updated the three letter acronym to D.I.D. I would say in the case of those with D.I.D there is no choice of animal, or other body image.. it is a state of simply "being" just as switching between personalities each has it's own body image and simply is.. for them to change sex would literally be the same as changing sex..

So it is the human in us that makes such choices, that wants to expand and experience the new.. which is what I feel is the most important and amazing thing about being human, being able to imagine the unimaginable, yet we are also always contained with that internal body image..

I guess that is why I can understand why some one would want to change their external body image to suit the internal one. But we are all still stuck with that body image even if we are in an avatar type set up, that body image is there it contains us like a huge wall stopping us from moving forward.

That part we have yet to be able to let go and evolve from, when we are able to do that, there is no limit to human imagination, and the separation of the mind from the body.

Hope this makes sense..

regards

TFJ

I'm sorry, forgive my ignorance, but I'm a bit confused as
to what exactly is an Intersexual. This is not a term I am
familiar with. Does this refer to say, someone like Bill Kaulitz of
the german band Tokio Hotel, he's male, has all the parts, likes females
yet looks more feminine than most women do? Or is it something else entirely?

[edit on 18-2-2010 by dethduck]